🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the central objective of climate governance. Across the diverse viewpoints, from local climate activists to elite UN representatives, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also include debates over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, water and land use policies, national labor markets, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing avoids questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers toiling in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

From Expert-Led Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about principles and balancing between opposing agendas, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something utterly new, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather part of current ideological battles.

Forming Strategic Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in high-risk areas like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide comprehensive public disaster insurance. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that allow them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more present truth: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will triumph.